|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
August 19th 03, 12:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
"Newps" wrote in message news:N3h0b.192923$Ho3.26290@sccrnsc03... That was cool. I would tag up the "VFR" pilot and run him thru FSDO. You have proof he was IMC. You'd have proof that he was in IMC only if he had collided with the guy at 7000 in IMC. 
|
|
#2
August 21st 03, 05:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote: "Newps" wrote in message news:N3h0b.192923$Ho3.26290@sccrnsc03... That was cool. I would tag up the "VFR" pilot and run him thru FSDO. You have proof he was IMC. You'd have proof that he was in IMC only if he had collided with the guy at 7000 in IMC. How would that provide proof that the collision took place in IMC?
|
|
#3
August 21st 03, 06:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ...
You'd have proof that he was in IMC only if he had collided with the guy at 7000 in IMC. How would that provide proof that the collision took place in IMC? Are you asking how the collision occuring in IMC would prove that the collision took place in IMC? Sounds like a "if a tree falls in the forest with no one near enough to hear it" sort of question...
|
|
#4
August 22nd 03, 12:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ... How would that provide proof that the collision took place in IMC? Because the guy at 7000 stated he was in IMC.
|
|
#5
August 22nd 03, 06:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Steven P. McNicoll" writes:
wrote How would that provide proof that the collision took place in IMC? Because the guy at 7000 stated he was in IMC. That's not proof, that's a statement. The other plane was "saying" it's VMC.
|
|
#6
August 23rd 03, 10:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Everett M. Greene" wrote in message ... That's not proof, that's a statement. The other plane was "saying" it's VMC. A pilot's report of his flight conditions is taken as fact.
|
|
#7
August 23rd 03, 05:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Steven P. McNicoll" writes:
"Everett M. Greene" wrote: That's not proof, that's a statement. The other plane was "saying" it's VMC. A pilot's report of his flight conditions is taken as fact. Procedurally, you are correct -- if the pilot says he's IMC, ATC handles him accordingly. However, his statement isn't a "fact" in the legal sense in that it's uncorraborated and in the situation being discussed, another pilot is "saying" it's VMC by his actions. Which of the two "facts" is correct?
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| AOPA Stall/Spin Study -- Stowell's Review (8,000 words) | Rich Stowell | Aerobatics | 28 | January 2nd 09 02:26 PM |
| Dover short pilots since vaccine order | Roman Bystrianyk | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 29th 04 12:47 AM |
| [OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots? | No Spam! | Military Aviation | 120 | January 27th 04 10:19 AM |
| [OT] USA - TSA Obstructing Armed Pilots? | No Spam! | General Aviation | 3 | December 23rd 03 08:53 PM |
| Riddle me this, pilots | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 137 | August 30th 03 04:02 AM |
Hybrid Mode
